Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization and Trends in Utilization, Patient Selection, and Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

IMPORTANCE: Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization were developed to critically evaluate and improve patient selection for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). National trends in the appropriateness of PCI have not been examined. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in PCI utilization, patient selection, and procedural appropriateness following the introduction of Appropriate Use Criteria. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, longitudinal, cross-sectional analysis of patients undergoing PCI between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, at hospitals continuously participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry over the study period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of nonacute PCIs classified as inappropriate at the patient and hospital level using the 2012 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 2.7 million PCI procedures from 766 hospitals were included. Annual PCI volume of acute indications was consistent over the study period (377,540 in 2010; 374,543 in 2014), but the volume of nonacute PCIs decreased from 89,704 in 2010 to 59,375 in 2014. Among patients undergoing nonacute PCI, there were significant increases in angina severity (Canadian Cardiovascular Society grade III/IV angina, 15.8% in 2010 and 38.4% in 2014), use of antianginal medications prior to PCI (at least 2 antianginal medications, 22.3% in 2010 and 35.1% in 2014), and high-risk findings on noninvasive testing (22.2% in 2010 and 33.2% in 2014) (P < .001 for all), but only modest increases in multivessel coronary artery disease (43.7% in 2010 and 47.5% in 2014, P < .001). The proportion of nonacute PCIs classified as inappropriate decreased from 26.2% (95% CI, 25.8%-26.6%) to 13.3% (95% CI, 13.1%-13.6%), and the absolute number of inappropriate PCIs decreased from 21,781 to 7921. Hospital-level variation in the proportion of PCIs classified as inappropriate persisted over the study period (median, 12.6% [interquartile range, 5.9%-22.9%] in 2014). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Since the publication of the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in 2009, there have been significant reductions in the volume of nonacute PCI. The proportion of nonacute PCIs classified as inappropriate has declined, although hospital-level variation in inappropriate PCI persists.

[No-reflow phenomenon in the practice of an endovascular surgeon].

No-reflow phenomenon is a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention and is the absence of distal coronary bed filling. The main cause of this phenomenon is distal embolism of the coronary artery by atheromatous and thrombotic masses. The paper gives different classifications for evaluation of myocardial and coronary reperfusion. The use of aspiration catheters, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors and other drugs that affect prognosis in patients with this phenomenon is also touched upon.

Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry.

BACKGROUND: There is no large report of the impact of fractional flow reserve (FFR) on the reclassification of the coronary revascularization strategy on individual patients referred for diagnostic angiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Registre Français de la FFR (R3F) investigated 1075 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic angiography including an FFR investigation at 20 French centers. Investigators were asked to define prospectively their revascularization strategy a priori based on angiography before performing the FFR. The final revascularization strategy, reclassification of the strategy by FFR, and 1-year clinical follow-up were prospectively recorded. The strategy a priori based on angiography was medical therapy in 55% and revascularization in 45% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 38%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 7%). Patients were treated according to FFR in 1028/1075 (95.7%). The applied strategy after FFR was medical therapy in 58% and revascularization in 42% (percutaneous coronary intervention, 32%; coronary artery bypass surgery, 10%). The final strategy applied differed from the strategy a priori in 43% of cases: in 33% of a priori medical patients, in 56% of patients undergoing a priori percutaneous coronary intervention, and in 51% of patients undergoing a priori coronary artery bypass surgery. In reclassified patients treated based on FFR and in disagreement with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=464), the 1-year outcome (major cardiac event, 11.2%) was as good as in patients in whom final applied strategy concurred with the angiography-based a priori decision (n=611; major cardiac event, 11.9%; log-rank, P=0.78). At 1 year, >93% patients were asymptomatic without difference between reclassified and nonreclassified patients (Generalized Linear Mixed Model, P=0.75). Reclassification safety was preserved in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: This study shows that performing FFR during diagnostic angiography is associated with reclassification of the revascularization decision in about half of the patients. It further demonstrates that it is safe to pursue a revascularization strategy divergent from that suggested by angiography but guided by FFR.